Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Two Tactics of Social-Democracy 
	in the Democratic Revolution

What Can We Learn From the Resolution of the Third
      Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. on a Provisional Revolutionary
      Government?

As is evident from the title, the resolution of the Third
    Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, is devoted
    wholly and exclusively to the question of a provisional
    revolutionary government. Hence, the participationof Social-Democrats in a provisional revolutionary government is
    included in it as part of that question. On the other hand, it
    deals only with a provisional revolutionary government and with
    nothing else; consequently, it completely leaves out, for example,
    the question of the “conquest of power” in general, etc. Was the
    Congress right in eliminating this and similar questions?
    Undoubtedly it was right, because the political situation in
    Russia does not at all give rise to such questions as immediate
    issues. On the contrary, the whole of the issue that has been
    raised by the people at the present time is the overthrow of the
    autocracy and the convocation of a constituent assembly. Party
    congresses should take up and decide not issues which this or that
    writer happened to

    mention,

    but those that are of vital political importance by reason of the
    prevailing conditions and the objective course of social
    development.

Of what importance is a provisional revolutionary government in
      the present revolution, and in the general struggle of the
      proletariat? The resolution of the Congress explains this by
      pointing at the very outset to the need for the “fullest
      possible measure of political liberty,” both from the standpoint
      of the immediate interests of the proletariat and from the
      standpoint of the “final aims of Socialism.” And complete
      political liberty requires that the tsarist autocracy be
      replaced by a democratic republic, as our Party program has
      already recognised. The stress laid in the Congress resolution
      on the slogan of a democratic republic is necessary both as a
      matter of logic and in point of principle, for it is precisely
      complete freedom that the proletariat, as the foremost champion
      of democracy, is striving to attain. Moreover, it is all the
      more advisable to stress this at the present time because right
      now the monarchists, namely, the so-called
      constitutional-“democratic” party, or party of “liberation,” in
      our country, are flying the flag of “democracy.” In order to
      establish a republic it is absolutely necessary to have an
      assembly of people’s representatives; and it must be a popular
      (elected on the basis of universal and equal suffrage, direct
      elections and secret ballot), and a constituent assembly. This
      exactly what  is recognised in the Congress resolution, further
      on. But the resolutiondoes not stop there. In order to
      establish the new order “that will really express the will of
      the people” it is not enough to call a representative assembly a
      constituent assembly. This assembly must have the authority and
      power to “constitute.” Taking this into consideration, the
      resolution of the Congress does not confine itself to the formal
      slogan of a “constituent assembly,” but adds the material
      conditions which alone will enable that assembly really to carry
      out its tasks. Such specification of the conditions that will
      enable an assembly which is constituent in name to become
      constituent in fact is imperatively necessary, for, as we have
      pointed out more than once, the liberal bourgeoisie, as
      represented by the Constitutional-Monarchist Party, is
      deliberately distorting the slogan of a popular constituent
      assembly and reducing it to a hollow phrase.

The Congress resolution states that a provisional revolutionary

      governmenton its own— one,
      moreover, that will be the organ of a victorious popular
      insurrection — can secure full freedom of agitation in the
      election campaign and convene an assembly that will really
      express the will of the people. Is this postulate correct?
      Whoever took it into his head to dispute it would have to assert
      that it is possible for the tsarist government not to side with
      the reaction, that it is capable of being neutral during the
      elections, that it will see to it that the will of the people is
      really expressed. Such assertions are so absurd that no one
      would venture to defend them openly; but they are being
      surreptitiously smuggled in under liberal colours, by our
      liberationists. Somebody must convene the constituent assembly,
      somebody must guarantee the freedom and fairness of the
      elections; somebody must invest such an assembly with full power
      and authority. Only a revolutionary government, which is the
      organ of the insurrection, can desire this in all sincerity and
      be capable of doing all that is required to achieve this. The
      tsarist government will inevitably counteract this. A liberal
      government, which will come to terms with the tsar, and which
      does not rely in full on the popular uprising, cannot sincerely
      desire this, and could not accomplish it even if it most
      sincerely desired to. Therefore, the resolution of the Congress
      gives the only correct and entirely consistent democratic
      slogan.

But an appraisal of a provisional revolutionary government’s
      significance would be incomplete and wrong if the class nature
      of the democratic revolution were lost sight of. The resolution
      therefore adds that the revolution will strengthen the rule of
      the bourgeoisie. This is inevitable under the present, i.e.,
      capitalist, social and economic system. And the strengthening of
      the bourgeoisie’s rule over the proletariat which has secured
      some measure of political liberty must inevitably lead to a
      desperate struggle between them for power, must lead to
      desperate attempts on the part of the bourgeoisie “to take away
      from the proletariat the gains of the revolutionary period.”
      Therefore the proletariat, which is fighting for democracy in
      front of all and at the head of all, must not for a single
      moment forget about the new antagonisms that are inherent in
      bourgeois democracy and about the new struggle.

Thus, the section of the resolution which we have just reviewed
      fully appraises the significance of a provisional revolutionary
      government in its relation to the struggle for freedom and for a
      republic, in its relation to a constituent assembly and in its
      relation to the democratic revolution, which clears the ground
      for a new class struggle.

The next question is that of the proletariat’s attitude in
      general towards a provisional revolutionary government. The
      Congress resolution answers this first of all by directly
      advising the Party to spread among the working class the
      conviction that a provisional revolutionary government is
      necessary. The working class must be made aware of this
      necessity. Whereas the “democratic” bourgeoisie leaves the
      question of overthrowing the tsarist government in the shade, we
      must push it to the fore and insist on the need for a
      provisional revolutionary government. More than that, we must
      outline for such a government a program of action that will
      conform with the objective conditions of the historic period
      through which we are now passing and with the aims of
      proletarian democracy. This program is theentireminimum program of our Party, the program of the immediate
      political and economic reforms which, on the one hand, can be
      fully realised on the basis of the existing social and economic
      relationships and, on the other hand, are requisitefor the next step forward, for the achievement of Socialism.

Thus, the resolution fully clearly defines the nature and aims
      of a provisional revolutionary government. In its origin and
      fundamental nature such a government must be the organ of the
      popular insurrection. Its formal purpose must be to serve as the
      instrument for convening a popular constituent assembly. The
      content of its activities must be to put into effect the minimum
      program of proletarian democracy, the only program capable of
      safeguarding the interests of the people which has risen against
      the autocracy.

It might be argued that being only provisional, a provisional
      government cannot carry out a constructive program which has not
      yet received the approval of the entire people. Such an argument
      would merely be the sophistry of reactionaries and
      “absolutists.” To abstain from carrying out a constructive
      program means tolerating the existence of the feudal regime of
      the putrid autocracy. Such a regime could be tolerated only by a
      government of traitors to the cause of the revolution, but not
      by a government which is the organ of a popular insurrection. It
      would be mockery for anyone to propose that we should refrain
      from exercising freedom of assembly pending the confirmation of
      such freedom by a constituent assembly, on the plea that the
      constituent assembly might not confirm freedom of assembly! It
      is equal mockery to object to the immediate execution of the
      minimum program by a provisional revolutionary government.

Finally, we will note that the resolution, by making
      implementation of the minimum program provisional revolutionary
      government’s task eliminates the absurd, semi-anarchist ideas
      about giving immediate effect to the maximum program, and the
      conquest of power for a socialist revolution. The degree of
      economic development of Russia (an objective condition) and the
      degree of class consciousness and organisation of the broad
      masses of the proletariat (a subjective condition inseparably
      connected with the objective condition) make the immediate
      complete emancipation of the working class impossible. Only the
      most ignorant people can ignore the bourgeois natureof the democratic revolution which is now taking place; only the most
      naive optimists can forget how little as yet the masses of the
      workers are informed about the aims of Socialism and about the
      methods of achieving it. And we are all convinced that the
      emancipation of the workers can be effected only by the workers
      themselves; a socialist revolution is out of the question unless
      the masses become class conscious and organised, trained and
      educated in open class struggle against the entire
      bourgeoisie. In answer to the anarchist objections that we are
      putting off the socialist revolution, we say: we are not putting
      it off, but we are taking the first step towards it in the only
      possible way, along the only correct road, namely, the road of a
      democratic republic. Whoever wants to reach Socialism by a
      different road, other than that of political democracy, will
      inevitably arrive at conclusions that are absurd and reactionary
      both in the economic and the political sense. If any workers ask
      us at the given moment why we should not go ahead and carry out
      our maximum program, we shall answer by pointing out how far the
      masses of the democratically-minded people still are from
      Socialism, how undeveloped class antagonisms still are, how
      unorganised the proletarians still are. Organise hundreds of
      thousands of workers all over Russia; enlist the sympathy of
      millions for our program! Try to do this without confining
      yourselves to high-sounding but hollow anarchist
      phrases—and you will see at once that in order to achieve
      this organisation, in order to spread this socialist
      enlightenment, we must achieve the fullest possible measure of
      democratic reforms.

Let us continue. Once we are clear about the importance of a
      provisional revolutionary government and the attitude of the
      proletariat toward it, the following question arises: is it
      permissible for us to participate in it (action from above) and,
      if so, under what conditions? What should be our action from
      below? The resolution supplies precise answers to both these
      questions. It emphatically declares that it ispermissiblein principle for Social-Democrats to
      participate in a provisional revolutionary government (during
      the period of a democratic revolution, the period of struggle
      for a republic). By thisdeclaration we once and for all
      dissociate ourselves both from the anarchists, who answer this
      question in the negative on principle, and from thekhvostistsamong the Social-Democrats (like Martynov
      and the newIskra-ists) who havetried to
      frightenus with the prospect of a situation wherein it
      might prove necessary for us to participate in such a
      government. By this declaration the Third Congress of the
      Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party rejected, once and for
      all, the idea expressed by the newIskrathat the
      participation of Social-Democrats in a provisional revolutionary
      government would be a variety ofMillerandism,[1]that it is impermissible in principle, as sanctifying the
      bourgeois order, etc.

It stands to reason, however, that the question of
      permissibility in principle does not solve the question of
      practical expediency. Under what conditions is this new form of
      struggle—the struggle “from above” recognised by the Party
      Congress—expedient? It goes without saying that at the
      present time it is impossible to speak of concrete conditions,
      such as relation of forces, etc., and the resolution, naturally,
      refrains from defining these conditions in advance. No
      intelligent person would venture at the present time to prophesy
      anything on this subject. What we can and must do is determine
      the nature and aim of our participation. This is precisely what
      is done in the resolution, which points out two objectives of
      our participation: 1) a relentless struggle against
      counter-revolutionary attempts, and 2) the defence of the
      independent interests of the working class. At a time when the
      liberal bourgeoisie is beginning to talk assiduously about the
      psychology of reaction (see Mr. Struve’s most instructive “Open
      Letter” in theOsvobozhdeniye, No. 71) in an attempt to
      frighten the revolutionary people and induce it to show
      compliance towards the autocracy—at such a time it is
      particularly appropriate for the party of the proletariat to
      call attention to the task of waging a real war against
      counterrevolution. In the final analysis, force alone settles
      the great problems of political liberty and the class struggle,
      and it is our business to prepare and organise this force and to
      employ it actively, not only for defence, but also for
      attack. The long reign of political reaction in Europe, which
      has lasted almost uninterruptedly since the days of theParis
      Commune, has too greatlyaccustomed us to the idea that
      action can proceed only “from below,” has too greatly inured us
      to seeing only defensive struggles. We have now, undoubtedly,
      entered a new era: a period of political upheavals and
      revolutions has begun. In a period such as Russia is passing
      through at the present time, it is impermissible to confine
      ourselves to old, stereotyped formulae. We must propagate the
      idea of action from above, we must prepare for the most
      energetic, offensive action, and must study the conditions for
      and forms of such actions. The Congress resolution puts two of
      these conditions into the forefront: one refers to the formal
      aspect of Social-Democratic participation in a provisional
      revolutionary government (strict control by the Party over its
      representatives), the other to the very nature of such
      participation (never for an instant to lose sight of the aim of
      effecting a complete socialist revolution).

Having thus explained from all aspects the Party’s policy with
      regard to action “from above”—this new, hitherto almost
      unprecedented method of struggle—the resolution also
      provides for the eventuality that we shall not be able to act
      from above. We must exercise pressure on the provisional
      revolutionary government from below in any case. In order to be
      able to exercise this pressure from below, the proletariat must
      be armed—for in a revolutionary situation matters develop
      with exceptional rapidity to the stage of open civil
      war—and must be led by the Social-Democratic Party. The
      object of its armed pressure is that of “defending,
      consolidating and extending the gains of the revolution,” i.e.,
      those gains which from the standpoint of the interests of the
      proletariat must consist in the fulfilment of the whole of our
      minimum program.

With this we conclude our brief analysis of the resolution of
      the Third Congress on a provisional revolutionary government. As
      the reader can see, the resolution explains the importance of
      this new question, the attitude of the Party of the proletariat
      toward it, and the policy the Party must pursue both inside a
      provisional revolutionary government and outside of it.

Let us now consider the corresponding resolution of the
      “Conference.”

[1]PLACEHOLDER